So-called "involuntary porn" or "revenge porn" sites have continued to make more news—against the will of just about everyone featured on them.

Most famously, Hunter Moore's site, IsAnybodyUp, pioneered the model: feature a site full of nude pictures of people, generally submitted against their will—and include their real name and hometown.

Moore eventually took his site down in the middle of last year, although he has hardly suffered for it. At its peak, the site was earning around $10,000 each month from ad revenue, based on 30 million page views, according to Moore. The porn mogul recently tweeted that he's even starting his own TV show.

The pictures are often posted by scorned exes. Moore has shown little sympathy for the people he features on his site. When a writer from the New York Observer asked him about their plight for a December story, Moore openly mocked his "victims" (as soon as he had finished setting up a deal to buy more cocaine, his current drug of choice.)

Mr. Moore made a motion with his hand to signify masturbation and rolled his eyes. “In a perfect world there would be no bullying and there would be no people like me and there would be no sites like mine,” he explained. “But we don’t live in a perfect world.”

After IsAnybodyUp went dark, an even sleazier imitator came around, named IsAnybodyDown. It features full names, and often phone numbers, of the ordinary people's nude shots. Ars' own Tim Lee reported on that site last year, noting that such sites test the boundaries of legal extortion, since the site features a service called "Takedown Hammer" which allows users to get off the site—if they pay up. Attorney Marc Randazza has even blogged about his plan to use copyright law to attack that site.

Last week, a new lawsuit was filed against a different "involuntary porn" site (which the plaintiffs call "revenge porn"). The suit [PDF] against Texxxan.com takes a more direct approach than Randazza: it alleges that creating "revenge porn" violates Texas state privacy laws.

The lawsuit includes 16 named plaintiffs and seeks class-action status for all the women featured on the site. (According to the lawsuit, Texxxan.com is dedicated to publishing only photos of "young women," unlike IsAnybodyDown, which include a few nude males as well.)

Two of the named plaintiffs, Hollie Toups and Marianna Taschinger, are also telling their stories on a website called "End Revenge Porn," which encourages victims of the practice and their sympathizers to lobby to amend the laws, so that "revenge porn is perceived to be a criminal act," that state law enforcement can act upon.

"The victims of this act are unable to stop it from happening because law enforcement will not even allow these cases to be reported," states the site on its "petition" page. "State police argue that the crime is occurring on the internet, which therefore crosses state lines and is out of their jurisdiction. The FBI claim that these cases are civil and/or do not threaten national security and should therefore be handled solely by lawyers."

As for Texxxan.com, it has closed itself to the public and become a "members only" site since the filing of the lawsuit. Toups, who works for the state as a mentor for kids, described the site's behavior to the New York Observer. When she e-mailed the site's owners, "[t]hey replied and said they would be happy to remove the pictures for me if I would enter my credit card information,” Toups said. “I went from being depressed and embarrassed to being really pissed off.”

Hollie Toups via Twitter

The new lawsuit takes a very broad aim, though, by not only suing Texxxan.com but going after the site's host, GoDaddy, apparently for not much more reason than the fact that at some point Texxxan cut a check to GoDaddy. John Morgan, the lawyer who filed the suit on Toups' behalf, didn't immediately respond to a request for comment from Ars but explained his strategy to the Observer this way:

"GoDaddy is profiting off of it. The reality of it is at some level this issue of revenge porn has to become a public discussion and a legislative discussion and it raises issues of corporate responsibility. Why would an organization like GoDaddy want to give its name to this type of website?” GoDaddy declined to comment.

Morgan suggests that the sites aren't protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects most online service providers from acts taken by their users, because they knowingly post photos without the subject's consent and advertise it. The exact outlines of what is protected by Section 230 are blurry, and no "revenge porn" case has been litigated to a decision.

Even if Morgan is right that the "revenge porn" site isn't protected by Section 230—debatable in itself—GoDaddy surely is, and that could cause a real problem for his lawsuit.

"The legal question isn't close," Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University who has blogs about many Section 230 cases, told Ars. "Section 230's immunity doesn't change even if GoDaddy knew it was hosting the site or could have easily disabled the website."

In fact, such an overreach would normally put the plaintiffs in danger of being forced to pay the defendant's legal fees under Texas' recently adopted anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) law, said Goldman. That probably won't happen in this case only because the speech in question is sleazy enough that it doesn't qualify as "a matter of public concern," so it won't be seen as a SLAPP.

"Revenge porn" may have a market that's reliable, if unethical. But the sites are also making an increasing number of enemies who aren't afraid to talk about their experiences. Those victims are getting more press, and their cause may well attract attention from lawmakers soon.

Having just read this, I haven't had a chance to really think through the legal and constitutional implications. But I will tell you one thing: it's a total dick move to create that website, it's a total dick move to post someone's picture on that site and it's most especially a total dick move to demand money to remove the picture.

Having just read this, I haven't had a chance to really think through the legal and constitutional implications. But I will tell you one thing: it's a total dick move to create that website, it's a total dick move to post someone's picture on that site and it's most especially a total dick move to demand money to remove the picture.

And the guy makes no apology that he's basically worthless scum. "In an ideal world, there wouldn't be people like me." Well, here's to making the world a better place, right?

The women should set up a website showing the name, picture, and address of the guys who submitted the "revenge photos".

Call it never-get-layed-again.com

Well, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but women are just as likely to do this to shame men as vice-versa.

And your point is what exactly? It's still thoroughly unethical either way.

The point is that it is unfair to say that this is a strictly male phenomenon. I found the implication offensive and sexist.

The article was about porn sites showing pictures of naked women.

I actually don't think women are as likely to create porn industries based on shaming men using male nudity as has been done to women. If that was equally likely then I think that would mean there would be an equal number of "revenge porn" sites showing naked men, and there aren't.

Women can certainly be mean, vindictive, and hurtful. But I hope you don't take the experience of being ill-treated by one woman and let her change the way you interact with all other women for the rest of your life.

The women should set up a website showing the name, picture, and address of the guys who submitted the "revenge photos".

Call it never-get-layed-again.com

Well, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but women are just as likely to do this to shame men as vice-versa.

If they were 'just as likely' then the ratio of porn on these sites would be roughly even, wouldn't it? I am not going to give them any of my traffic to confirm my suspicions or anything, but from the coverage I am seeing I'm going to guess that its not even remotely close to even....

I can't believe that this isn't a slam dunk of a case against site owners. I know the U.S. is much more liberal on these issues, but posting nude pictures of people against their will and publishing their personal information must break some laws, right?

But let me guess the reason nothing's happened: so far, none of the victims was the daughter (or son) of somebody with influence.

Its bullshit that this can happen. If a person consents to have their other half take pictures of them in the buff, thats a private thing. A private show, as it were. Airing it to the public, and charging money for access surely has to translates into a dollar figure for the person who was publicly shown. IANAL, bt I would think that would work out to a near given.

I would think the sites that post the pictures could be sued into oblivion over this, and quite possibly compelled to reveal who submitted the pictures for civil court.

Its bullshit that this can happen. If a person consents to have their other half take pictures of them in the buff, thats a private thing. A private show, as it were. Airing it to the public, and charging money for access surely has to translates into a dollar figure for the person who was publicly shown. IANAL, bt I would think that would work out to a near given.

I would think the sites that post the pictures could be sued into oblivion over this, and quite possibly compelled to reveal who submitted the pictures for civil court.

The problem is that it is the photographer, and not the subject of the photograph who "owns" the image. In the same way that paparazzi take pictures of celebraties and sell them without giving any royalties to the celebrity.

There may be a creative lawyer out there who can find a way to use existing laws to fix this, but it may require new legislation, as the article mentions.

Why would an organization like GoDaddy want to give its name to this type of website?

... Because they paid money for it. Shocking though it may be, that's how capitalism works: you give them money, they give you stuff.

Quote:

In the same way that paparazzi take pictures of celebraties and sell them without giving any royalties to the celebrity.

I'm not certain, but I'm fairly sure that celebrities are exempt from certain protections due to their notoriety. That is, they're effectively public figures. Non-celebrities are afforded certain protections, like not being able to use their image without consent and so forth.

Its bullshit that this can happen. If a person consents to have their other half take pictures of them in the buff, thats a private thing. A private show, as it were. Airing it to the public, and charging money for access surely has to translates into a dollar figure for the person who was publicly shown. IANAL, bt I would think that would work out to a near given.

I would think the sites that post the pictures could be sued into oblivion over this, and quite possibly compelled to reveal who submitted the pictures for civil court.

The problem is that it is the photographer, and not the subject of the photograph who "owns" the image. In the same way that paparazzi take pictures of celebraties and sell them without giving any royalties to the celebrity.

There may be a creative lawyer out there who can find a way to use existing laws to fix this, but it may require new legislation, as the article mentions.

A celebrity is a public figure and their actions are considered genuine news. As a result the have less expectation of privacy and protection under privacy laws than the average citizen. The same basic principle applies to pictures from an accident of crime scene.

Something like the situation with these sites should fit more into a photographer/model type situation where the photographer/submitter could be sued for not having a signed release from the subject. IANAL but I'm assuming by not requiring a release, (and charging to have pictures removed), the site would be opening itself up for damages as well.

Its bullshit that this can happen. If a person consents to have their other half take pictures of them in the buff, thats a private thing. A private show, as it were. Airing it to the public, and charging money for access surely has to translates into a dollar figure for the person who was publicly shown. IANAL, bt I would think that would work out to a near given.

I would think the sites that post the pictures could be sued into oblivion over this, and quite possibly compelled to reveal who submitted the pictures for civil court.

The problem is that it is the photographer, and not the subject of the photograph who "owns" the image. In the same way that paparazzi take pictures of celebraties and sell them without giving any royalties to the celebrity.

There may be a creative lawyer out there who can find a way to use existing laws to fix this, but it may require new legislation, as the article mentions.

A celebrity is a public figure and their actions are considered genuine news. As a result the have less expectation of privacy and protection under privacy laws than the average citizen. The same basic principle applies to pictures from an accident of crime scene.

Something like the situation with these sites should fit more into a photographer/model type situation where the photographer/submitter could be sued for not having a signed release from the subject. IANAL but I'm assuming by not requiring a release, (and charging to have pictures removed), the site would be opening itself up for damages as well.

Expectations of privacy in law don't quite work that way. The people weren't engaged in per pay or pro bono photographic sessions for artistic or commercial venture, these situations are more akin to photos taken at grandma's birthday inside your parent's house. Saying that they open themselves up to damages is akin to saying that imageshack does the same if it allows grandma's party pics to be hosted and uncle John doesn't want to be shown publicly and can sue. The expectation to a waiver form from any party is non-existant because a public setting has been created which dissolves an expectation of individual privacy.

Like I said prior, the egregious extortion is the legally dubious area. Barring that, and possibly (POSSIBLY) copyright (as demonstrated with the Scarlet Johansen candid picture fiasco), it's just ridiculous to claim that people who share or participate in risque pictures willingly and in a non-professional setting have a legal right to sue and claim damages.

Its bullshit that this can happen. ...I would think the sites that post the pictures could be sued into oblivion over this, and quite possibly compelled to reveal who submitted the pictures for civil court.

Why should the sites be sued? Even if a site encourages or specifically exists for 'revenge porn', it's the person uploading the pictures that's making the decision to hurt someone. If anyone should be punished for these uploads, it's the people doing the uploading; not the people providing the uploading/hosting service. No different than gun crimes being the fault of the shooters, not the gun manufacturers.

So if a child porn site exists we shouldn't touch the site, merely the uploaders?

The problem is that it is the photographer, and not the subject of the photograph who "owns" the image. In the same way that paparazzi take pictures of celebraties and sell them without giving any royalties to the celebrity.

Paparazzi get sued to hell, though. Most laws give copyright to the photographer, but that doesn't mean he's immune to pursuit over an illegaly obtained (as per without consent) photograph.

jimbles wrote:

Expectations of privacy in law don't quite work that way. The people weren't engaged in per pay or pro bono photographic sessions for artistic or commercial venture, these situations are more akin to photos taken at grandma's birthday inside your parent's house.[...]

Like I said prior, the egregious extortion is the legally dubious area. Barring that, and possibly (POSSIBLY) copyright (as demonstrated with the Scarlet Johansen candid picture fiasco), it's just ridiculous to claim that people who share or participate in risque pictures willingly and in a non-professional setting have a legal right to sue and claim damages.

Highly depends on local laws. I remember a decade ago, a few newspapers (non-US) got sued (and lost) for publishing the picture of a young woman celebrating some football victory. Although the whole thing was very public (thousands of people moving through the streets), the ruling was that a snapshot of a crowd was OK (it's news), but a picture of a person required express consent.

Agree on the identifiable individuals may need consent/signoff before the pictures can be used commercially (again, this may depend on area).

Also - with the tightening of the pronography laws - most websites showin porn need to retain all the legal documentation/permissions to use the content. A summary to say it is available often is shown at the start of a video or in the website smallprint. So... questions for those more knowledgeable about US law:

1) Do these rules only apply to 'hardcore' porn or could they apply to these shots (albeit probably with a lower age restriction) and 2), if so could this be used to attack such sites i.e. to defend themselves, they'd have to prove all the people on the site were legal to show and have any relevant paperwork. 3) Would any safe harbour/user generated content arguments be relevant if they are offering a takedown service for a fee WITHOUT any requirement for proof that you are the person in the photo?

Its bullshit that this can happen. ...I would think the sites that post the pictures could be sued into oblivion over this, and quite possibly compelled to reveal who submitted the pictures for civil court.

Why should the sites be sued? Even if a site encourages or specifically exists for 'revenge porn', it's the person uploading the pictures that's making the decision to hurt someone. If anyone should be punished for these uploads, it's the people doing the uploading; not the people providing the uploading/hosting service. No different than gun crimes being the fault of the shooters, not the gun manufacturers.

So if a child porn site exists we shouldn't touch the site, merely the uploaders?

So, kiddie porn is the new Hitler, huh.

I don't disagree with your perspective, just the means by which you defend it...

Parents show these sites to your young daughters as a warning not to take nude pics.

Parents, show these sites to your young sons so that they learn to deal in a mature way with a break-up instead of being a complete waste of oxygen. Additional bonus: fewer cases of stalking and fewer restraint orders.

Or are you just going to accept that we should tolerate wastes of oxygen?

Its bullshit that this can happen. ...I would think the sites that post the pictures could be sued into oblivion over this, and quite possibly compelled to reveal who submitted the pictures for civil court.

Why should the sites be sued? Even if a site encourages or specifically exists for 'revenge porn', it's the person uploading the pictures that's making the decision to hurt someone. If anyone should be punished for these uploads, it's the people doing the uploading; not the people providing the uploading/hosting service. No different than gun crimes being the fault of the shooters, not the gun manufacturers.

So if a child porn site exists we shouldn't touch the site, merely the uploaders?

So, kiddie porn is the new Hitler, huh.

I don't disagree with your perspective, just the means by which you defend it...

I'm not saying we shouldn't touch the uploaders (hint: we should), but certainly sites allow it to proliferate and as such should be removed. Child porn and unapproved nude photos cause real world harm, guns on the other hand (while having the ability to cause harm) have a legitimate use - comparing guns to these sites is an unfair comparison. What exactly is the use of these sites if no one uploads photos?

Is this not why sites like 4chan have active defenses against people uploading child porn?

The problem is that it is the photographer, and not the subject of the photograph who "owns" the image. In the same way that paparazzi take pictures of celebraties and sell them without giving any royalties to the celebrity.

Paparazzi get sued to hell, though. Most laws give copyright to the photographer, but that doesn't mean he's immune to pursuit over an illegaly obtained (as per without consent) photograph.

jimbles wrote:

Expectations of privacy in law don't quite work that way. The people weren't engaged in per pay or pro bono photographic sessions for artistic or commercial venture, these situations are more akin to photos taken at grandma's birthday inside your parent's house.[...]

Like I said prior, the egregious extortion is the legally dubious area. Barring that, and possibly (POSSIBLY) copyright (as demonstrated with the Scarlet Johansen candid picture fiasco), it's just ridiculous to claim that people who share or participate in risque pictures willingly and in a non-professional setting have a legal right to sue and claim damages.

Highly depends on local laws. I remember a decade ago, a few newspapers (non-US) got sued (and lost) for publishing the picture of a young woman celebrating some football victory. Although the whole thing was very public (thousands of people moving through the streets), the ruling was that a snapshot of a crowd was OK (it's news), but a picture of a person required express consent.

Yes, in a previous post I mentioned bystander laws in photos, but they are exceptionally rare in the US and do not translate well to interstate governance laws which the internet would all but certainly fall to. I'm not sure why my posts are being downgraded, as the content of them (clearly labeled jokes aside) aren't mean spirited towards these women/victims but rather more in line with the prevailing winds of US law.

The fact is, unless these women can claim copyright over the images posted, as in the previously mention Scarlet Johansen picture incident, I really find it hard to believe that their case has any merit outside of the extortion end. If the sleaze sites drop that money making aspect, I can't see a legal reason for them to be shut down, nor would I endorse a legal gymnastics route to do so. The dire impact it could potentially have on legitimate image hosting sites with get-rich-quick types attacking from all civil litigation angles using that as precedent could be immense.

Yes, in a previous post I mentioned bystander laws in photos, but they are exceptionally rare in the US and do not translate well to interstate governance laws which the internet would all but certainly fall to. I'm not sure why my posts are being downgraded, as the content of them (clearly labeled jokes aside) aren't mean spirited towards these women/victims but rather more in line with the prevailing winds of US law.

The women should set up a website showing the name, picture, and address of the guys who submitted the "revenge photos".

Call it never-get-layed-again.com

Well, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but women are just as likely to do this to shame men as vice-versa.

And your point is what exactly? It's still thoroughly unethical either way.

The point is that it is unfair to say that this is a strictly male phenomenon. I found the implication offensive and sexist.

The article was about porn sites showing pictures of naked women.

I actually don't think women are as likely to create porn industries based on shaming men using male nudity as has been done to women. If that was equally likely then I think that would mean there would be an equal number of "revenge porn" sites showing naked men, and there aren't.

Women can certainly be mean, vindictive, and hurtful. But I hope you don't take the experience of being ill-treated by one woman and let her change the way you interact with all other women for the rest of your life.

Women can't post pictures of women, in your mind? What a horribly slanted view you have. I hope you're homophobia doesn't change the way you interact with gays for the rest of your life.

And yes - in this day and age women are as immature and likely to pull this crap as men. What would make you feel otherwise - other than prejudice!

Yes, in a previous post I mentioned bystander laws in photos, but they are exceptionally rare in the US and do not translate well to interstate governance laws which the internet would all but certainly fall to. I'm not sure why my posts are being downgraded, as the content of them (clearly labeled jokes aside) aren't mean spirited towards these women/victims but rather more in line with the prevailing winds of US law.

Now why would the internet not appreciate current US law? =p

Hahaha, yes, point well taken. But surely we can appreciate the difference between the devil and the devil's advocate on this one?